Senate to probe how case for war was made

November 3, 2005

WASHINGTON – By moving the Senate into a secret session for two hours this week, Democrats put a politically charged question back on the table: Did the Bush administration exaggerate the case for war against Iraq?

Emboldened by last week's indictment of former top White House aide I. Lewis Libby, Democrats Tuesday used an obscure parliamentary rule to capture the Senate floor. In doing so, they infuriated Republicans but won a timetable to complete a long-delayed Senate investigation of whether the White House manipulated the intelligence used to justify invading Iraq.

An earlier phase of this probe, completed in July 2004, offered a searing critique of prewar intelligence estimates. Its conclusions were amplified in a report by the 9/11 commission the following month. Together, these reports spurred legislation to reform US intelligence agencies.

But neither review examined whether government officials tendentiously misused intelligence. Democrats argued for months that this element - not just reviewing failures of the intelligence community - must be part of the committee's oversight responsibility.

Now, so-called Phase 2 would investigate whether public statements, testimony, and reports by US government officials were supported by available intelligence. It would also probe whether a Pentagon policy group under Douglas Feith ginned up the case for war, preempting other intelligence.

From the start, the panel has been stymied by disagreements.

Democrats wanted the probe to focus on Mr. Feith's activities, as well as some 350 statements by Bush administration officials during the period after 9/11. Republicans expanded the scope to include members of Congress and claims by officials in the Clinton administration. This expanded list of comments, cited without attribution to avoid bias, were then matched up against available intelligence. Senators, not staff, were to evaluate whether the comments were justified, according to Sen. Pat Roberts ® of Kansas, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"I must tell you at this point that some of those statements [by lawmakers and Clinton-era officials] are even more declarative and more aggressive than those made in the [bush] administration," he said on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday. Once the committee started down that road, "we didn't get very far," he added.

Democrats dispute that version of events, calling the investigation "moribund" and a whitewash. "Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this ... our efforts have been thwarted," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia, the panel's vice chairman.

Rarely is a senatorial disconnect as pronounced as this one - a sign of how politicized oversight has become in the GOP-controlled Congress.

The Senate Intelligence committee was established as a bipartisan check on abuse of the intelligence agencies by the executive branch. That's why the top Democrat is labeled "vice chairman," instead of "ranking member," as in other committees.

But in recent years, the Senate intelligence committee has become increasingly polarized along party lines. Leak of a Democratic strategy memo calling for using the prewar intelligence probe to embarrass the president in the 2004 elections didn't help. The two chairmen ceased communication for months.

Despite better public relations, that mistrust still dogs the panel's work, especially over an issue as sensitive as possible political manipulation of intelligence estimates.

"There are many Democrats who want the Senate to serve its historic function as being the arena where controversies can be discussed and investigated, such as Watergate and Iran-Contra," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University. "The big difference is that those two scandals were when we had divided government; now, we have united government. So Democrats are turning to other tools, such as instigating a secret session, to put the heat on Republicans, especially Republican moderates, to at least think about investigation," he adds.

Critics assailed the tactic as a cheap trick to seize the agenda at a time when President Bush is gaining momentum after his nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and his plan to contain bird flu. Democrats insist that the risky - and apparently successful - gambit was necessary to hold the Bush administration accountable.

"We're finally going to ... have Phase 2 of the investigation regarding how the intelligence was used to lead us into the intractable war in Iraq," said Democratic leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada.

Republicans say there will be areas of substantial agreement when the report is released. For example, Senator Roberts told reporters that the Phase 2 probe of prewar claims about postwar Iraq, which predicted a humanitarian crisis, rather than an insurgency, will take a hit for being as deeply flawed as the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

November 3, 2005

It's about time somebody is being called to account for taking us into this war, apparently without ever attempting negotiations first.

November 4, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 |

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

November 4, 2005

(a) Many of those quotes precede the second round of UN Weapons Inspections

( and many more are based on false intelligence - intelligence lied about by the Bush Administration

/Bevin

November 4, 2005

The Senate Intelligence Committee had the same intelligence as President Bush. Saying President Bush lied to them is a strawman. It is spin. They knew what President Bush knew and knew the sources of it too.

Saddam was misleading the world. He dupped all of us. Even the great pubba Hans Blix was only "starting" to suspect Saddam didn't have WMDs when the US invaded.

November 4, 2005

Bush said HE WAS CERTAIN

He lied or he is an idiot - which is it?

/Bevin

November 4, 2005

QR Window:

Chilling Nightscapes and Jingle Stars

'Fear, my child, fear -- fear the Democrats; when you grow up you’ll understand.'

'Are they the ones who turn out the lights in America, Father?'

'They’re the men in black, son.'

Ahhh, c’mon! that’s ‘curds, crumpets, and whey’ compared to -- ouch: Read below, what our neighbours to the north, canadafreepress.com, led with today… above the fold, as it were.

Democrats, anti-Bush, anti-war anti-America

A Dangerous New Depth of Sewer Politics

by J.B. Williams

Thursday, November 3, 2005

“Democrats had been promising their anti-Bush, anti-war anti-America constituents hard proof of the DNC-invented White House "culture of corruption" for months. They said it would come in the form of up to 15 indictments of key White House officials last Friday. They said the Plame-Wilson investigation had uncovered key evidence that raised questions about White House manipulation of intelligence wrongly used to justify war in Iraq.

But none of this turned out to be true Friday when a single indictment was filed against a single White House official--That indictment accusing no one of outing anybody, raising no questions or issues concerning justifications for or against the war at all, leaving Democrats and their Bush-hating minions once again looking silly, petty and irrelevant.

In fact, prosecutor Fitzgerald stated point blank, "This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

Fitzgerald wrapped up the topic with "The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

Yet none of this stopped DNC Chairman Howard Dean from falsely claiming less than 48 hours later, "we can't ignore the glaring questions this case has raised about the rationale the Bush Administration used to send us to war in Iraq."

One indictment instead of the fifteen promised--no one charged with outing anyone--and the prosecutor openly removing any possibility of political pro or anti-war rhetoric coming out of his investigation, left the already beleaguered Democrats reeling…

At the same time, the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party forced the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Miers, replacing her with well-known and respected conservative Judge Alito, effectively calling the Democrats bluff to filibuster a supremely qualified nominee strictly on ideological grounds.

In Texas, the judge expected to help lynch Republican Tom Delay was removed from the case due to his DNC affiliations and related contributions. Combined, these events seem to have backed Democrats against the wall and they have come out swinging with reckless abandon in a fit of blind rage.

In response to mounting bad news, Democrat Senate minority leader Harry Reid blind-sided Republican Senate majority leaders by moving to invoke Rule 21, forcing the Senate into a so-called "secure" closed door session for the reported purpose of flushing alleged pre-war intelligence blunders out into public view. The motion was seconded by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, famous for his anti-American statements referring to American soldiers as "Nazis" operating "Gulags".

Mysteriously, less than 24 hours later, staff writer Dana Priest of The Washington Post releases a cover-story picked up by press agencies around the world, outing secret CIA counter-terrorism operations allegedly set up in multiple countries to track, capture and interrogate terrorists.

The Post story claims "The existence and locations of the facilities - referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, U.S. Justice Department and congressional documents--are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country." Not any more.

Where did Dana Priest acquire this very sensitive Top Secret information? If Plame’s ID was a major national security leak, then this story is a tsunami sized gusher.

A two-year-old investigation into the alleged outing of a single CIA employee failed to prove or even charged anyone with any such activities. But mysteriously, 72 hours later, an international outing of truly top secret CIA counter-terrorism operations was launched. The life and death question is… by whom?

It’s official… Democrats have declared all out war against their political opponents, launching an unprecedented scorched earth campaign to regain political power at any expense.

The Democratic Party has lost election after election, allegation after allegation. Their "culture of corruption" campaign mantra was imploding before their eyes with a single lonely indictment. Their 2006 and 2008 campaign strategy of "personal destruction" was fast running out of steam.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean announced in a letter dated November 1, 2005 "Late this afternoon my friend Senator Harry Reid forced the Senate into an extraordinary closed session to discuss the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq and subsequent cover-up that led to the indictments last week."

If this is what led to the single indictment of Scooter Libby last week, the Prosecutor who filed that indictment doesn’t know it. In fact, he has flatly rejected any such notion, as noted above. But Howard Dean and the DNC have never been distracted by the facts before, so why start now?

Dean later stated in that letter "For the next twelve months Harry Reid will be taking the lead on the Senate floor." Reid, as majority leader Bill Frist put it, "hi-jacked the Senate". The minority leader, a man placed in the minority position by American voters, used procedural rules to circumvent the will of the majority of Americans, who voted in the last four election cycles to remove Democrats from leadership.

In so doing, Democrats demonstrate their distrust in the American voter and their disdain for the choices they have made, not to mention their unabashed lust for power. But worse, their scorched earth campaign to regain power by publicly prosecuting administration officials who were not prosecuted by an ongoing two-year special investigation, may threaten national security beyond repair, all for the sake of regaining party power.

The left-wingnuts of the Democrat Party have been working around the clock to undermine support for the Bush Administration by undermining our troops’ mission for more than two years. Since that hasn’t worked out for them, their campaign of destruction now aims to destroy that mission entirely by outing true secret CIA counter-terrorism efforts around the globe, bringing down the CIA and our military operations in their unrelenting efforts to bring down the Bush White House.

Today’s Democrats have been called un-American and unpatriotic by many Americans for several years now, myself included. But this is a whole new level of un-American here. If there was ever any doubt about it among real Americans before, there can’t be now!

It is no secret that Democrats have been systematically removed from power by American voters over the last four election cycles. It’s no secret that the DNC has been on the ropes, gasping its last breath, running lower in public opinion polls than their opposition, even after daily relentless attacks successfully undermines public support for that opposition.

Now it’s no secret what they are willing to do in the name of regaining political power. The implications are enormous, off the charts. In order to regain power by default, completely destroying their political opponents in the international court of public opinion is a must.

So they seek to discredit not only the current administration, but also our military, the decisions of the Joint Chiefs and our intelligence community, right in front of the entire world, including our enemies, who could not be happier about these DNC efforts.

Americans who can’t see what is at stake, or what the real "culture of corruption" in the DNC is up to, deserve what they get.

This internal political power struggle has been brewing for some years and it has clearly reached critical mass. God help this nation… The enemy is in the house, not just hiding in some spider-hole in the deserts of the Middle East.

Those who support the DNC campaign of complete public humiliation and destruction of our nation on the international stage won’t think much of this column. Those who see what is happening better step to the plate and prepare to defend their nation from this enemy within.”

Put this Williams guy in witness protection until ’08 -- and then run him the bloody ‘H’ for Prez!

November 4, 2005

A question.

What does QR Window mean?

November 5, 2005

QR = Quick Reply

It means a poster is not responding to anyone specifically. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

November 5, 2005

>>What does QR Window mean?<<

Hi. On occasion I take the precaution of not directing my post to anyone particularly. I enjoy vigorous dialog (on the issue/s) and think it advisable to sometimes submit in an undirected manner so’s not to be misconstrued or prove too offensive. I’ve taken to misdirecting those posts as QR Window/Quick Reply Window, or perhaps, I’ll use instead, QR frame

EDIT:

Oh hey! just now saw Shane's post when proofing mine...

He nailed it.

November 5, 2005

ON THE SENATE PROBE, fIRST, I DONT NEED s

November 5, 2005

I dont think Adventist Forum is needed for commentary on Washington politics unless it directly concerns end time events. No matter who was elected the country would have demanded retribution for terrorism. Wars alway get out of hand: WW1 was supposed to be "splendid three month war" to bring back glory and honor to Austia. At its end just about evey king in Europe had lost his place and millions had died. And if we believe the Good Lord sets up national leaders, why get so upset with who is president. I am glad current events tell us its time to have the most deep relationship with Jesus.

November 5, 2005

Quote:

And if we believe the Good Lord sets up national leaders, why get so upset with who is president.

There are two possible discussions

(a) Does the Lord want us to support the political leaders that are in power - Caesar, Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nixon, George Bush...?

( Does the Lord wants us to use the political processes that He puts in place?

/Bevin

November 5, 2005

The Adventist church does not have a political mission. That cannot be stressed enough. However this forum is kind of like the potluck table. We all sit around and discuss our cares and concerns, hopes and ambitions, loves and passions. Those that do not care about polilics need not participate in the World Affairs forum here at Club Adventist.

November 5, 2005

I know that by posting this, I will be refering to a controversial point I have about living in the past, but my point is that this president's 'mistatements' have taken the lives of 2K of our boys and girls...

[:"blue"] Poll results show a majority of Americans support the hypothetical impeachment of Bush. These polls show greater support for the possibility of impeaching Bush than ever seen for the 1998 impeachment of Clinton, though the numbers are comparable to the early Clinton polls that used similar hypothetical wording as in the Bush polls.

A Zogby International poll from October 29 to November 2, 2005 found that by a margin of 53% to 42% (+/-2.9%) Americans say that "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." This was supported by 76% of Democrats, 50% of Independents, and 29% of Republicans.

Americans also support the premise of the above poll that Bush did not tell the truth. A November 2, 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled the public" in making its case for war.[5]

This impeachment poll result shows an increase in support from earlier polls.

In October of 2005, AfterDowningStreet comissioned a poll by the independent Ipsos Public Affairs Research that found that by a margin of 50% to 44% Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. Sentiment was strong. 39% strongly agreed and 30% strongly disagreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

A June of 2005 Zogby International poll showed that 42% of all Americans, and even 25% of Republicans, would agree that Congress should "hold him accountable through impeachment" if it were found that Bush "did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq".

[/]

November 5, 2005

More like living in a fantasy world than the past. There is not now nor has there ever been any evidence that President Bush lied about WMDs. He, like all those on the Senate Intelligence Commitee, was fooled by Saddam.

One needs to understand the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't get its information from the White House. It gets its information from the CIA, FBI, forgien intelligence, etc. It's sources are the same as the White House. This is due to the seperation of powers. If the Senate Intelligence Committee only knew what the White House told them, obvioulsy the White House could mislead them and there would be no system of checks and balances.

November 5, 2005

Quote:

He, like all those on the Senate Intelligence Commitee, was fooled by Saddam.

At the "George, it is a slam dunk" meeting, he KNEW that he had not been shown strong evidence, voiced concerns about it, had a crony tell him what he wanted to hear WITH NO MORE EVIDENCE and he KNEW there was no more evidence

he KNEW the weapons inspectors were not finding anything,

he KNEW that the uranium purchase evidence was bad,

and he KNEW that the majority of the world's governments were not convinced.

THEN HE SAID HE WAS CERTAIN.

Either he lied or he is an idiot. Which is it?

/Bevin

November 6, 2005

Quote:

Either he lied or he is an idiot. Which is it?

......Hmmmmmm....Is being an idiot an impeachable offense???

November 6, 2005

I choose to believe the facts and not the spin. The facts are that the Senate Intelligence Committee was convinced not by the Bush Administration but in addition to the them. So were over a dozen forgien intelligence agencies. The coalition going into Iraq was over 30 nations.

All roads lead back to Saddam. He was the source of all the bad intelligence. He fooled the world. Yet, as we discovered after the invation, he was bribing UN Security Counsil members to get sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs. The world is safer without him.

November 6, 2005

Quote:

I choose to believe the facts and not the spin. The facts are that the Senate Intelligence Committee was convinced not by the Bush Administration but in addition to the them. So were over a dozen forgien intelligence agencies. The coalition going into Iraq was over 30 nations.

[shaking head] Shane, Shane, Shane.....

Do you know why we don't have a committee for a presidency? Because we would never get anything done..With a Presidency, we have ONE man, who is in charge, He makes his cabinet, and his adminstration and his advisors....The buck stops with him. He is the ONE who makes the decisions and he is the ONE responsible.

And as for your coalition....They are leaving...and there are rumors of others leaving...And those that are there, are NOT doing anything, with the exception of Briton and there is talk of them going home soon.

Quote:

Yet, as we discovered after the invation, he was bribing UN Security Counsil members to get sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs. The world is safer without him.

At the begining of the Gulf War 2, Saddam was contained. Saddam already had over 100 tons of yellowcake previous to the niger incident. [so why get another 2 tones of the stuff????] Weapons inspectors had already determined that it was still sealed . Even if they had gotten into it, they did not have the technology nor the education to resume thier neuclear WMD program.

Watergate may have been bad, but this scandle is worse, as it ultimately involves the deaths of 2000 American soldiers for a needless cause...Those deaths will be concidered causilties of a needless war if Libby is conviced and a serious bcancor sore on this nations presidency...

Rember, you [and that's a general 'you', not a specific you] voted him in....

November 7, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

we have ONE man, who is in charge, He makes his cabinet, and his adminstration and his advisors....

Actually, due to the balance of powers, a president's cabinet must be approved by the Senate. So while the president gets to choose them, he has to get the permission of a majority of the senators.

There is no scandel. President Bush got permission from Congress to invade Afganistan and later got permission to invade Iraq. The intelligence available to Congress on which it based their decision was the same which was available to the President.

Does anyone know what intelligence lead to the Spanish-American War?

Does anyone know what intelligence led to US involvement in WW1 (which led to US involvement in WW2)?

November 14, 2005

[:"blue"] False prewar data offers a hard lesson, senators say

LAWMAKERS PROBING WHETHER WHITE HOUSE MISUSED INTELLIGENCE

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The Republican chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said Sunday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

``I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action,'' Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas said on ``Fox News Sunday.''

``We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore,'' he said. ``We get into pre-emptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.''

He said agreement had been reached on the next phase of review by the intelligence panel into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

The intelligence panel vice chair, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., also appearing on Fox, called the review ``absolutely useful'' because ``if it is the fact that'' the Bush administration ``created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.''

Appearing on CNN's ``Late Edition,'' national security adviser Stephen Hadley said the White House is ``supporting'' the study, adding: ``What you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.''

He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was ``because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.''

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., appearing with Roberts on ``Late Edition,'' said Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.

``I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it,'' he said.

He said Iraq ``has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.''

Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. [/]

It seems to me that the SSIC is not as up to date as some have deemed it to be. And that they work a bit slower to come to the same conclusions as the president....But it ain't there yet.

November 17, 2005

Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney

"the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration...

The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie..."

November 17, 2005

Quote:

"We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore," he said. "We get into pre-emptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets."

After two major intelligence failures, I hope no one in Washington is taking intelligence at face value.

November 17, 2005

Quote:

Shane said:

...I hope no one in Washington is taking intelligence at face value.

Shane, I would have thught that by now you would have learned not to use the words "Washington" and "intelligence" in the one sentence.

Graeme

Sign In

Senate to probe how case for war was made

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Jeannieb43

Dr. Shane

bevin

Dr. Shane

bevin

jasd

Jeannieb43

Dr. Shane

jasd

dennisinchina

dennisinchina

bevin

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

bevin

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Planey

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity